Sunday, August 24, 2008

"Dispatches: Undercover Mosque" Returns!

For all of my Muslim friends who noted that the producers of "Dispatches: Undercover Mosque" had been accused of editing the violent and intolerant messages being preached in supposedly moderate UK mosques, the people who accused the producers have been found guilty of libel. The producers were awarded 100,000 pounds for the false allegations against them. As if this weren't enough, the show will return with more proof that violence is being proclaimed in the UK's moderate mosques. What is to be done to converts, according to moderate Muslim women at these moderate mosques? "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam." Read More.

39 comments:

Somehow I knew the "out of context" card wasn't going to work. anyway,

hey David I have an idea, why don't you just ask Bassam or another Muslim friend of yours to take a visit at the Mosques over there? I mean Sami Zaatari lives in London right?

Since Zadawi and Zaatari spend so much time defending the fact that Islam does not involve terrorism, wouldn't they be horrifed by the distortions in being made of Islam these mosques? maybe they could convince the Imams to visit there websites inorder to obtain a "proper" education of Islam.

It's a simple fact that if our peaceful Muslim friends go into a mosque and challenge our violent Muslim friends on the issue of violence, our peaceful Muslim friends are going to lose that debate. All of the evidence is against them, and they know it. Their best bet is to try and convince the rest of the world that Islam is a religion of peace. It will never work in the mosques, where people know about Islam.

David we will see if i shall lose such a debate, our date is getting ever closer and i promise you from now every argument you have will be answered and brought down like in our first debate.

and then our second debate on Christianity will be the icing on the cake.

also David i have been to mosques, and they dont preach kill kill. churches which preach hate and violence and thats a FACT. offcourse make the excuses now.

thirdly, this documentary is only in the UK, how can you assume these UK mosques are a summary of all mosques? thats a bigoted generalzation right there.

fourthly, have you forgotten about all the sex abuse in your own churches? and you want to pass judgement on Islam? HA what a joke

welcome to the faith of modesty and love, indeed those priests showed alot of love to those church members.

ps just incase you say sex abuse isnt like violence, wrong, in Christianity every sin is viewed equally and bad, each will send you to hell, whether it be lying, stealing, adultery, or killing. and sex abuse is terrorism to those who were abused.

offcourse you will make all the excuses you can now, which is expected but wont work, and DK is a true sign of that, all the excuses makes people become ATHEISTS.

As for sex abuse - are they preaching it in these Churches? Is Saudi money flowing in to print pamphlets and fund psychotic preachers to spread the message of sexual abuse. NO! Churches have condemned this evil and censored the priests who were involved. That's the difference - do you see?

I'm not sure what you mean by "answered and brought down." You certainly said things in response to my arguments, but as for "bringing them down," that's an entirely different story. In order to bring down an argument, you need to show that at least one of the premises is false or that the logic is invalid. You did neither for any of my arguments.

In our debate, you rarely even understood what I was saying, so your responses didn't even make sense. Here's an example:

DAVID: Muslims often make what I call the "Argument from Moral Excellence," which states that we can know Muhammad was a prophet because of his amazing character. This argument fails, however, because it's based on an appeal to the moral sense of people in the modern world. But people in the modern world believe that having sex with little girls, murdering critics, etc., are wrong. Hence, this argument cannot be used as evidence for Islam.

SAMI: But people would object to things in the Bible as well! So David is being inconsistent.

DAVID: I'm not being inconsistent at all. If a Christian argued for the validity of the Bible based on the amazing moral teachings of the Old Testament, I would reject this argument too, because there are things in the Old Testament that people believe are wrong.

SAMI: David is saying that Christians can't get morality from the Bible! I agree!

DAVID: That's not what I said at all. I believe we can and should get our morality from the Bible. My point is simply that you can't base an argument for a position on a premise that your listeners reject. In the case of the Argument from Moral Excellence, your argument assumes that your listeners are going to agree with Muhammad's morality, and they won't. Hence, the argument fails, just as it would fail if someone made a similar argument based on the Old Testament.

Sami, you never got the basic point of a simple argument, which concerns me. You don't understand simple arguments, which means that you end up misrepresenting your opponents. It also concerns me that your Muslim listeners accept your misrepresentations as answers, when you rarely answer anything. (I find that Muslims will accept any response to a criticism of their religion as a full refutation, whether or not the response makes sense at all.)

With all of that said, there's no need to brag or boast, Sami. You sound like Nadir, and I thought that you were beginning to move past the childish trash-talking phase in your life. Are you going to blaspheme the Holy Spirit in our debates next month, as you did in your debate with Sam?

Anyhow, let me clarify something. If you can actually answer my arguments that Islam is not a religion of peace, I welcome your answers. I'm after truth, Sami. If you can show me that my current views are wrong, then I want you to refute my current views. I'm after truth, Sami. Are you?

As a final note, I should add that there's a massive difference between, on the one hand, me debating without preparing, against a young Muslim in his first debate, in a room full of Muslims that I'm trying to be gentle with, and, on the other hand, me debating against a young Muslim who comes on my blog bragging and talking trash, and after I carefully prepare a series of arguments and refutations.

I find that Muslims will accept any response to a criticism of their religion as a full refutation, whether or not the response makes sense at all...

V. true observation - ever watched Zakir Naik debate?

As to the old argument from moral superiority, I would love for a Muslim to show me where Amos murdered his critics, or Isaiah raided caravans or Moses had relations with an underage girl. Even so, if Muhammad is the seal on all of the prophets I would expect his moral example to be far superior to any one of the Biblical prophets - which it isn't. Jesus eclipses any of them and Muhammad - which I know is such a source of frustratino for our Muslim friends.

who said im bragging and talking trash? i just said i promise to answer all your arguments as i did in the first debate, and i repeat it, i will answer all your arguments as i did in the first debate.

and moving on i did understand most of your main points on the assasinations, black magic, satanic verses, you got refuted on all these points and you didnt provide one single real response to my answers, you know it, and i know it, and so does everybody else.

i am saying again now, in our Christianity debate it will not be pretty, i am going to have so much fun exposing you, your Bible, and your fellow Christians for the biggest inconsistencies and double standards i have ever seen in my life. and thats not talking trash, thats just talking the truth. and no i wont insult your Holy Spirit, i will just quote your Bible and let it do the talking, something you cant do with the Quran as you quote and then you start making things up in the text which arent there like in our first debate!

anyways David my friend, i want you to bring your A game to the next debate, and not make excuses after wards that you went easy on me okay buddy? and you say i talk trash ey when your the one going telling other people you went soft on me?!!!!!!! give me a break David, i dont need you or any Christian to go soft on me, go as rough and aggresive as you like.

the biggest inconsistencies and double standards i have ever seen in my life

Hey speak for yourself - are you even willing to address the work of textual scholars such as like Nodelke and Goldziher? And then you want us to take you seriously when you bring up the textual criticism of the Bible? PUHHLEEZZ!!!

Oh and while you're busy preparing for your debate, please try to see if you can find a copy of the imaginary "Zabur" and "Injil" books that the Qur'an speaks of. Imagine that - two book that just dissapeared off the face of the earth - and God's word no less! Oh the things that some people will believe!

Oh I'm sorry, your patron saint Ahmed Deedat used to do the textual argument all the time. So you base your rejection of the Bible on what exactly? Or do you not want to give your arguments away before the debate?

Still, I'm not surpised by your response, since Muslim apologists get very skittish when you start talking about hard facts.

Since you seem to espouse Goldziher and Schact's theory of Hadith Criticism, then why not challenge a Muslim to a debate on it. Depending on your location, I might be able to help fund a debate on it.

I've always wanted to find someone who holds on to their outdated theory, at least become familiar with Harald Motzki and his theory which is slightly less outdated.

And continue with the strawmans, what the hell has Ahmed Deedat got to do with anything. Heck you really need to get over your psychological problems with him, he's dead already and so are most of his arguments.

my saint Ahmed Deedat? wow its amazing how someone cant simply concead they created a silly straw man, so they continue to make a clown of themselves and build more straw mans!

again Jay, the topic is not textual integrity of the Bible, nor did i ever argue such a topic, so again dont create straw mans, and dont further your straw man fetish by telling me what other apologists have done.

HA! And you don't think that German Higher Criticism ala Welhausen is outdated?

But I take your point on Harald Motzki - I will check him out. My understanding was that Fred Donner's "Narratives of Islamic Origins" is an excellent study of the topic.

he's dead already and so are most of his arguments.

Well, without Deedat the current crop of Muslim standup apologists would probably never have been - and frankly none of you have moved past his basic premises.

Sami, you accused us of double standards - so I will challenge you with those that emerge from your own community of standup apologists. If you can't engage those criticisms then just admit it - I grew up in the desert and I can smell camel manure a mile away.

"Well, without Deedat the current crop of Muslim standup apologists would probably never have been - and frankly none of you have moved past his basic premises."

Right.... We can see when it comes to intellectual analysis that you are one of those who lacks the ability to objectively do such. I am one of the first to admit that Ahmed Deedat lacks what is required by contemporary apologetical standards, However your statement has no basis what so ever.

I have never used a Deedat argument in my life through out my online days, I have never attempted to use the swooning theory as a means of debating against Crucifixion nor do I talk about various versions of the Bible. I'd love to know what basic premise of Deedat, I've never progressed beyond!

As for calling us Stand Up Apologists, yes we are because we stand up for our beliefs which is more than I can say for you, why not challenge some Muslim Apologists to come and have a live debate with you.

Is that how you located Goldziher's basic thesis, you smelt the Camel Sh#t a mile away and picked it off the bookshelf, took it home then read it?

"Anyways I was always a brighter child and my arrogance, and mastery of the english language didn't really help channel this in a good direction, and I became one of those kids who was really really cheeky to anyone in authority such as Teachers etc, etc."

So according to this, you're a master of the English language. How, then, can you defend yourself by appealing to bad grammar?

it's because my holiday lifestyle, sitting at the P.C for half the day, and reading articles and writing notes on them..... it leads to drowziness, laziness and well staring at a P.C Monitor for long enough will do this to anyone (it's 2:56 A.M here!)... thus rendering me unable to critically analyse my own grammatical constructs and subsequently rendering my post with such grammatical garbage.

Well in response all I have to say is that Muslim standup apologetics today is much the same as what it was in the days of Deedat. He's the one who set the agenda - today the only difference is that there is a little more abuse of the technical knowledge of New Testament criticism and revisionist history.

But we still essentially have the same use of vacuous and fallacious argumentation e.g. The Bible testifies to the Koran; yet the Koran and Bible disagree; thus the Bible must be wrong (inadvertently pulling the rug from under the Koran). Of course you get around this by selectively reading both the Bible and the Koran. Now are you telling me that this doesn't outline your basic premise on the reliability of the Christian Scriptures? How is this any different from Deedat? Ok so talk about the Gnostics or throw in some Bart Ehrman - stil lthe same song, albeit sung in a more technical language.

So no I don't have a fixation on Deedat - I just want to remind you (and will keep reminding you) standup apologists where your legacy lies - a source that even some of you admit is argumantativly flimsy. Although I am amused by how not even a decade after his death, Muslims themselves are seeing how pathetic his work was.

"today the only difference is that there is a little more abuse of the technical knowledge of New Testament criticism and revisionist history."

and later:

"Ok so talk about the Gnostics or throw in some Bart Ehrman - stil lthe same song, albeit sung in a more technical language."

Have any examples in mind? or care to elaborate?

My experience is usually the opposite. The everyday Muslim I encounter (and lets include Dr Naik in this) is usually the old 1 John 5:7, ending of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, combined with Deedats faulty commentary of the greek on John 1:1 (which is copied and posted all over the net).

I don't see any improvement or even a small technical knowlegde of textual criticism at all, maybe the one exception is islamic-awareness.org...

Well in response all I have to say is that Muslim standup apologetics today is much the same as what it was in the days of Deedat. He's the one who set the agenda - today the only difference is that there is a little more abuse of the technical knowledge of New Testament criticism and revisionist history.

Yeah mate, really rich coming from this Stand Up Comedian who just earlier cited Goldziher as an authority on contemporary uptodate research, Nice one! ;)

Ok so talk about the Gnostics or throw in some Bart Ehrman - stil lthe same song, albeit sung in a more technical language.

Well, I doubt you could refute either a Scholar of Pagels or Ehrman's Calibre, however that is really rich coming from a Stand Up Comedian who just cited Goldziher who's research itself comes from a Naturalist assumption.

"So no I don't have a fixation on Deedat - I just want to remind you (and will keep reminding you) standup apologists where your legacy lies - a source that even some of you admit is argumantativly flimsy. Although I am amused by how not even a decade after his death, Muslims themselves are seeing how pathetic his work was."

So Pathetic that you feel the need to bring it up all the time huh? lol It's outdated and unscholarly but heck for it's day it was giving the pathetic African and Asian Missionaries a taste of their own cheap tactics and low blows.

P.S We all know you're bitter about Deedat despite what you claim, I can smell Bullsh#t a Mile Away (Being Scottish and all).

You have a problem with Goldziher??? And yet you want to use Welhausean higher criticism in your approach to the Old Testament? This is just another perfect example of the double standards of standup apologists. I rest my case!

Btw I used Goldziher as an example, not as an authority - I've already referenced Fred Donner as the person I would consider an authority on early Islamic source criticism.

refute either a Scholar of Pagels or Ehrman's Calibre

First off, Pagels and Ehrman haven't taught me anything that I didn't learn in New Testament 101 - they've just tried to educate a broader audience and in the process and have taken a sensationalist approach. I don't need to respond to them as better scholars than even they already have - Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Richard Hays etc. If you're interested in actually learning something, why don't you read some of their stuff. Keep the Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman for light entertainment.

Pathetic that you feel the need to bring it up all the time huh? lol

I just want to reming all of you standup apologists what your intellectual pedigree is. And that is all it is - reading a little Elaine Pagels doesn't make you that much more informed than Sheikh Deedat.

You have a problem with Goldziher??? And yet you want to use Welhausean higher criticism in your approach to the Old Testament? This is just another perfect example of the double standards of standup apologists. I rest my case!

....Who said I use Welhausean higher criticism in anything? You have a slander routine to match your stand up comedy these days!

Btw I used Goldziher as an example, not as an authority - I've already referenced Fred Donner as the person I would consider an authority on early Islamic source criticism.

You also have cited Puin, Luxemburg and Goldziher previously.... with the exception of Puin, who is questionable, the other two are jokes these days.

First off, Pagels and Ehrman haven't taught me anything that I didn't learn in New Testament 101 - they've just tried to educate a broader audience and in the process and have taken a sensationalist approach. I don't need to respond to them as better scholars than even they already have - Ben Witherington, NT Wright, Richard Hays etc. If you're interested in actually learning something, why don't you read some of their stuff. Keep the Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman for light entertainment.

I studied Divinity at Aberdeen Uni for one year, I'm quite familiar with N.T Wright, as for Dan Brown, you may choose to indulge in fiction, I'll stick to real scholars like Raymond Brown thanks...

I just want to reming all of you standup apologists what your intellectual pedigree is. And that is all it is - reading a little Elaine Pagels doesn't make you that much more informed than Sheikh Deedat.

... sort of like your apologetics huh?

Jay, I'll debate you anytime, anywhere on the subject of the deity of Christ. Then we'll see who has the joke apologetics.

Google Video, Paltalk, Live: You name it, just as long as you show your face and we hear your voice.

Um, ok so why exactly do you not accept the Old Testament as scripture again? Do you accept that these are the books of Moses? If not, why not? It's hard to keep track when standup apologists keep juggling red herrings.

Luxenberg is not a "joke" as you claim. He has revived an older approach to Qur'anic studies and has been commended for it by a wide swathe of scholars. Having said that, some of them are critical of his conclusions.

Ooooh the divinity of Christ. Are you going to tell me how Jesus said we are all gods? Or are you going to challenge me to "show one place where Jesus says I am God, worship me". Or even better yet, are you going to educate me on the pagan influences on early Christianity?

Look I've heard every trick in the standup apologist toolkit - this stuff is not anything new to me. It has also been answered comprehensively. If after reading these responses you are still convinced of your position I really have nothing more to say or add.

Indeed you are quite patronising, for someone who reads Dan Brown who you made reference to two posts ago, I'm quite shocked at your false invested confidence. Anymore works of fiction you might choose to pull out of your sleeve in your next round of Stand Up Comedy (heck at least David's jokes are funny!).

Whatever reasons I should choose, Welhausen Criticism is not one of them so you can keep throwing the strawmans out if you want.

As for Goldziher, he is about an important contributor to understanding Islam as Tabari is to understanding Christian Doctrine!!!

Fred Donner, a bit more credible however like most orientalists his scholarship has been rendered less effective due to his accepting the sources of the dominant sect as the only authority on historical events.

Luxenburg is a joke, anyone who attended SOAS' Conference on the Qur'an last year would know his research is outdated, dismissed and rather ignored now a days.

Ooooh the divinity of Christ. Are you going to tell me how Jesus said we are all gods? Or are you going to challenge me to "show one place where Jesus says I am God, worship me". Or even better yet, are you going to educate me on the pagan influences on early Christianity?

LOL, look mate you're not debating Deedat here despite the fact you have probably had deeply entrenched sophisticated fantasies about doing such. I will refer to only conservative biblical scholarship should you accept my challenge.

The Ball is in your court Jay, I will debate you on the Qur'an v.s Bible, or Historical Jesus.

I just want to see whether or not you actually do apologetics as well as comedy. Or do you come on here purely to rant against Deedat?

On the contrary, I think his approach has engendered some real interest in approaching the Qur'an from the Syrio-Aramaic angle once again.

As for your challenge - sure.

But I want to propose that we do it here, on this website, with short written exchanges. I'm at work all day and am usually busy in the evenings with family commitments. This will enable me to be flexible in where/how I can participate.

I can do an introductory post and we can continue from there. We can go point by point. No name calling, no sarcasm. Just a straight up exchange.

If you guys would like to come up with some rules (word limit, etc.), and the specific topic you will be addressing, you can have the entire debate post by post (Jay has access to the site, so he can do his own posts; Yahya can email his posts to me, and I will post them). Once the entire debate is finished, we can put it into a single large document. If it's a good debate, we can put it on Answering Islam as well.

God Willing we shall commence with a debate then Jay, however I'm not thrilled with the idea of debating on this blog. I suggested a more neutral venue of Paltalk, Google Video etc for a reason where it requires you answer spontaneously with your own voice etc. Mainly because I'm very weary of what I refer to as cut and paste antics.

So if I may I'll request David forward you my email and we can arrange a date and how we shall do this.

As to format this is the one I prefer. I won't be engaging in any "cut and paste" antics. We live in different countries and I think arranging a mutually acceptable time would be complicated. Also I prefer to have a well thought out exchange with a record.

Drop me an email and we can arrange all the details. Although I may defer this till the end of November if we are debating one of the topics I'm covering with David here in London (or if it's a crucial argument for my case). I think the format provided by TheologyWeb of 5 posts each should allow a well rounded debate.

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!